By Our Reporter
Signs of strain between Prime Minister Balendra Shah and Rastriya Swatantra Party Chairman Rabi Lamichhane are becoming harder to dismiss as isolated disagreements. Differences that once appeared manageable within the RSP are increasingly surfacing through government decisions, party appointments and statements by leaders associated with the two sides.
The latest episode followed Shah’s September 30 meeting with lawmakers from engineering backgrounds. Most participants were RSP MPs. Shah encouraged them to move beyond routine political issues and contribute ideas based on their expertise, describing engineers as “extraordinary.”
A day later, RSP General Secretary Bipin Acharya told Parliament that he was an engineer of “average ability” trying to become extraordinary. He did not name Shah, so interpreting the remark as a direct response requires caution. Coming immediately after Shah’s meeting, however, it inevitably attracted political attention.
The more important issue is Shah’s growing direct engagement with RSP lawmakers. As prime minister and parliamentary party leader, he has reason to communicate with MPs. But the RSP remains institutionally headed by Lamichhane. When the prime minister independently engages lawmakers on their performance and political role, the boundaries between government, parliamentary leadership and party organisation can become blurred.
That problem is not entirely new. Reports have already pointed to coordination difficulties among the RSP’s government, parliamentary and party wings, with some RSP lawmakers publicly questioning government decisions.
Ambassadorial appointments illustrate the complicated relationship. Before the nominations were finalised, reports said consensus between Shah and Lamichhane was still pending on some names. The final recommendations were eventually taken to the Cabinet after consultations, with officials saying consensus had been reached. This suggests negotiation and differences within the leadership, but does not by itself establish an open rupture.
Party appointments appear more politically sensitive. Following the Chitwan convention, leaders associated with Shah expected representation in senior organisational positions. Delays in completing those arrangements can deepen suspicion if one camp believes the other is consolidating control of the party machinery.
Similar tensions have reportedly surrounded Cabinet choices. Such disputes matter because Shah and Lamichhane occupy two different centres of authority. Shah controls the executive and leads the parliamentary party, while Lamichhane heads the political organisation. As long as their priorities coincide, this arrangement can work. When they diverge, almost every major appointment can become a contest over who ultimately carries greater authority.
The controversy surrounding former Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana has added another layer. Lamichhane publicly objected to the circumstances in which Rana was taken under police control, while allegations circulating within the party have sought to connect the episode with wider disputes involving judicial appointments and government decisions. Claims about personal influence, motives or links between these events have not been independently established and should therefore be treated as internal political allegations rather than facts.
The same caution applies to claims surrounding the passport printing contract. Differences may have existed over how the government handled the issue, but allegations connecting commercial rivalry, individual leaders and later political disputes require evidence before firm conclusions can be drawn.
What can be seen more clearly is a structural problem inside the RSP. The party has two powerful figures controlling different sources of authority. Shah has the premiership and parliamentary leadership. Lamichhane has the party chairmanship and organisational machinery.
That arrangement demands unusually close coordination. Without it, disagreements over ministers, ambassadors, party officials or government policy can quickly become struggles over institutional authority.
The evidence so far points more clearly to growing friction than to a formal split. But the disagreements are no longer confined entirely to private discussions. Remarks by senior leaders, competing expectations over appointments and recurring coordination problems are bringing them into public view. How Shah and Lamichhane manage that overlap of power will influence not only their relationship, but also the cohesion of the RSP and the functioning of its government.
Login to add a comment